Sunday, August 18, 2024
Saturday, August 17, 2024
David C. Pack is Elijah the Prophet...because he says so
Prophet David C. Pack
David C. Pack declared himself a prophet, and all members of The Restored Church of God are also prophets. During "The Greatest Untold Story! (Part 526)" on July 27, 2024, the Pastor General spent one hour circumventing clear Bible passages by inserting his own presumptuous biases by denying what they really say.
Proving he cannot rightfully divide anything, he rejected doctrines in his literature and The World to Come programs, contradicted his own words, and recreated biblical understanding into his own image.
David C. Pack is Elijah the Prophet
because he says so.
David C. Pack had declared this before and then walked it back. The Bible does not leave room for that. He said he was not Elijah while winking to those paying attention because he never stopped believing he really was.
David C. Pack’s mouth and mind do not often align. Well-documented in the public record, he exposes his obvious lies and hypocrisy that leaves his worshippers without excuse.
Accurately quoting David C. Pack is labeled as an attack by enemies. Faithful men of God have nothing to fear when others remind them of what they said. We shall all be judged for every word that comes out of our mouths. Some should fear more than others.
Flashback Part 520 – June 22, 2024
@ 1:36:50 I won’t I I I won’t claim to be a prophet. “Well, you should, Mr. Pack!” Well, maybe I should. Then, pray for me because I’m not gonna do it.
Flashback Part 512 – May 11, 2024
@ 1:14:32 I’m not prophesying now. Nobody’ll ever get me to say that.
Flashback Part 190 – June 29, 2019
@ 04:00 I’m not a prophet. If I were, I’d be a false one because I’ve prophesied the end of this Series a number of times, and they were all failed prophecies, and you'd have to stone me. But I was smart enough to come into it as an apostle and stay there. I’m not a I’m not a prophet. But I know there were false apostles, too, but I’m teaching you the truth, so I’m not a false apostle.
Flashback Part 8 – December 26, 2015
@ 32:31 “When a prophet speaks in the name the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that’s the thing which the Lord has not spoken, but the prophet has spoken it presumptuously: you shall not be afraid of him.” And other places say he dies. That doesn't seem to make some people afraid. Some people still go out and prophesy. They'll say things that don't come to pass. They're false, and they get the death penalty because any true prophet knows he never speaks on his own.
A complete PDF transcript of Part 526 with timestamps and highlighted moments of interest is available for download HERE.
Part 526 – July 27, 2024
@ 44:46 The Bible the Bible has is coming clearer than it ever has before. You know, I've reached that stage in my life. I just read things for exactly what they are. I know my office and and I'm I'm authorized to teach these things.
The Greatest Untold Story! runs on the fuel of NOT reading things for exactly what they are. David C. Pack is legendary for adding to and taking away from the words in the Bible. He authorized himself and carries no divine authority.
The desperate presumptions of David C. Pack’s logic cannot endure mild scrutiny.
@ 1:03:24 “As is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” So, Paul was guided by God's spirit. There's nowhere that I see in the Scriptures. Maybe he did, but it's certainly not in the Scriptures, where it says God talked to him directly. For instance, in the same way that He did with with John the Baptist. However, He spoke to John when it said he heard an utterance, and He said, it's tie–it's go time. And and and off he went to to to to speak.
The account of Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts 9:3-6 and while he was held inside the castle in Acts 23:11 must not count. After all, the Bible is a big book, and it is challenging to keep all the relevant verses in your head simultaneously.
For a man who claims he reads things for exactly what they are, Dave performs some pretty incredible logistical gymnastics slathered with verbal sophistry to make his points appear plausible. Reading a verse as is and accepting what the book says is out of the question.
@ 1:07:36 But so far, so far, we paved the way to understand that you can have prophets in this age. Certainly, a man can be a prophet without getting an utterance from God. I mean, in a direct way where I'm gonna I'm gonna open your mouth. Put my words in there.
David C. Pack knows he is Elijah but will not say it plainly in 3…2…1…
@ 1:08:44 I don't think any of you believe for a minute that I'm gonna have to actually or Elijah would have to actually physically eat the book of Revelation.
One way to keep a dwindling membership from bailing out is to spread the wealth around.
@ 1:09:44 God cannot bring this Kingdom unless there's at least one prophet on earth. But it says prophets. So, I mean, I have no idea. If you're gonna go first, every one of you may be considered a prophet.
@ 1:10:10 What if, right now, one prophet is telling another large number of prophets? What, what if he's doing that?
@ 1:11:23 And that may may be, by the way, encouraging to the degree that if if a prophet if the one who's gonna be Elijah, gives you a final date, once he's sorted through everything, it might mean it carries a little extra weight beyond anything we ever talked about before. But not if you don't absolutely know that he's a prophet, but also maybe you are. Or prophetess.
A certified doctor with a mental health degree would be able to accurately identify the array of psychosis expressed in the Main Hall at Headquarters. Deep down, Dave must know what he is doing but cannot stop himself. His pathology leaks out in the most bizarre ways.
@ 1:18:29 Why were they [disciples] doing that? No man can know the day or the hour. Well, they didn't have the New Testament, so they tried to find it out. I hope I could be forgiven if if I am Elijah and you, if you're prophets, too, in a sense, some of you. All of you. Most of whatever it is, however God will use us in that way. You could be forgiven for wanting to know the date.
Nobody needs to “be forgiven” for wanting to know when the Kingdom of God will arrive.
@ 1:50:05 The Mystery of God should be finished as He has declared to His servants, the prophets who are alive. I'm not talking to any dead prophets. Who are the prophets that I'm talking to? But God works through one man, this messenger. And he declares to others. So when we were looking for who Elijah is, we were looking for when you would be and who else could be prophets.
@ 1:50:30 I and I thought. Apologize for that. Mr. Armstrong thought he was Elijah. Nobody thought, well, how how? What do you mean? And I thought I was in 2015. Then then, I pulled back from that. I wasn't surebecause I knew that we didn't have it wasn't a church figure in the way we thought, but it turns out he was. And we'll come in a moment to when it may have happened.
The following quote is lengthy, but this would be worthwhile for those interested in observing the decay of a man's speaking abilities. David C. Pack’s stammering is nestled between moments of clarity.
@ 1:54:03 A twig went forth. I'll send my messenger. You know, so he I've been I'm, you know, been around a few years. Zechariah 3:1. When Elijah when when when Juh–Joshua the High Priest is standing in front of Christ, how is he already Joshua the High Priest with filthy garments on? How did he get to be Joshua the High Priest, called a messenger and a prophet in Haggai? How did he get to be a a a a a a the high priest before he walked in white and got a clean martyr mire, and was handed control over the temple in the house? Is it for the same reason he was Elijah? Before he comes to that same moment? He's called a messenger in the book of Haggai. And he goes to people in big houses, which I did starting 11 years ago. And in some ways, 25-plus years ago. I've been going to them. Any I–der I learned I was Joshua 15 years ago. I started going almost 12 years ago. 11 years ago, to Laodicea and trying to apply these verses to them. Some few listened. Not many. Those that feared and obeyed God came, and the rest didn't.
There is something seriously wrong with him, and it is only getting worse.
The brethren of The Restored Church of God must reject their Bibles to continue attending. The hirelings at Headquarters must sear their conscience with a hot iron to continue to support that spiritually corrupt organization. Paying David C. Pack to lie to them is a betrayal of all they claim to love.
@ 2:00:59 The big reason I looked for a Third Kingdom for so long is I could not see where I had first prophesied. Now I do. So if you reject that I'm a prophet, you better look in the mirror and ask, what are you?
@ 2:01:29 So, like Elijah was over the school of the prophets, I'm doing the same. You know, one of the proofs that I'm a prophet, and I'll come to the end, and you and this this this applicable to you, too. So, get in the saddle with me, or get in your own saddle.
@ 2:01:58 A prophet is not without honor, and the word should be travel–despised. But in his own country, kin and house. I am despised in my house and my kin and my country. It's actually proof of being a prophet.
That is not a proof. It is a condition. But Dave cannot tell the difference. Proof of being a prophet is when you say something will come to pass, and it does. Being despised for being a jerk is not biblical evidence.
God backs up His prophets. God does not back up David C. Pack.
@ 2:03:09 The ancient Elijah was res–despised. He was not accepted. That's what it says. I've been despised at a level you cannot imagine. Don't try. I brought the most wonderful message one could bring, and I've been hated for it. It's almost a proof in itself.
The perceived "hate" focused on David C. Pack does not originate from him bringing "the most wonderful message." Those who despise him have a good reason: He is a false apostle, false teacher, and false prophet. He is an arrogant, narcissistic, blaspheming, hypocritical liar teaching antichrist theology, keeping his members trapped with fear.
Another aspect that does not help his likeability factor is that David C. Pack is an awful human being. The line of people who would testify to that in a court of law goes out the door and down the street. The enablers at Headquarters know that is true and cannot call Marc Cebrian a liar.
The men who have worked closely with him have their personal horror stories.
@ 2:05:31 But, I do not tout myself now any more than you should go out here and start telling people you're a prophet. It might not work. Reconsider.
Being despised for being a jerk is not biblical evidence of being a prophet, Dave.
The man does not hear what comes out of his mouth sometimes. God has a sense of humor and is a fan of irony in 3…2…1…
@ 1:18:58 Matter of fact, I'm gonna tell you, I'm gonna show you that one of the things the false prophets will do is they say they know the Day of the Lord. I'll show you that in a minute. So I finally, finally know. But these verses also help for our purpose here per when Elijah rises because he has to have finished a Series before the first season arrives.
False prophets know when the Day of the Lord is. So does David C. Pack. Ponder that.
For those who wonder if David C. Pack is aware of what he is doing, let his own lips bear witness to what his mind knows in 3…2…1…
@ 2:06:02 It’s just, I'm gonna give this message and and the enemies will attack me. And they'll say, you know what he said? 'cause there are people listening to this, “You know what he said? He he flattered him and told them they were all prophets. What a wicked man.”
Thou hast said.
Marc Cebrian
Friday, August 16, 2024
True History of the True Church??
True History of the True Church??
What I am about to show you are a few examples taken from my recently completed review of a booklet by Herman Hoeh titled “True History of the True Church” 1959 edition. (My deepest thanks to my friends who helped me edit this project.) Hoeh's booklet attempts to build a lineage back through time from Herbert Armstrong to the Apostles. It cites real history books and makes real falsifiable claims on history. This is not some debatable bit of doctrinal curiosity here. This is history – supposedly the “TRUE history.” We can look at this and see without a doubt if it is true or if it is not. If what Hoeh says is not true, then it cannot possible be the "true history." I think you will be shocked by what I have found.
I would like to share these few examples with you since my overall study is far too large to post here and let you see for yourself whether or not Hoeh was being truthful. These are some of the most blatant examples, but I assure you the rest was no different.
How this works is I am going to give you a "claim", which is a quote from Hoeh's book. Then we'll review the facts behind the claim. Then I'll summarize.
CLAIM:
-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.15
FACTS:
In The Natural History of Pliny (the Elder), Volume I – which contains Book III – starting on p. 191, Pliny begins describing the regions of Italy. He mentions various areas and cities until, on page 202, Pliny begins describing the city of Rome. On page 203, he states that within the massive walls of Rome there were 14 districts. The metropolitan area grew, however, and eventually spilled over all bounds and engulfed several surrounding towns. On page 204, Pliny mentions that within the first district, within the bounds of the then current city of Rome, there was one town engulfed which was called Saturnia. Pliny also mentions Janiculum (formerly Antipolis) which also forms part of the then current city of Rome.
The translators write in the notations on page 204, about Antipolis:
“Said to have been so called from having been ‘opposite’ to the ancient city of Saturnia. The Janiculus or Januculum was a fortress on the opposite bank of the Tiber, and a suburb of Rome, connected with it by the Sublician bridge.”
CONCLUSION:
This claim is false. Hoeh distorts what Pliny said. Rome was not formerly known as Saturnia. Rather, Rome had grown to engulf Saturnia and many other small towns.
CLAIM:
-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.15
FACTS:
Anacletus, aka Cletus, lived during the time of the Apostles. Some records say Anacletus was bishop of Rome in 77-88, others say 80-92. The records just aren’t entirely reliable. There are even some records that split Anacletus into two different people (Cletus and Anacletus). But we should ask ourselves, why were these records so spotty? Simple! The persecution of Christians that began with Nero was still going strong, and it was deadly to be a Christian out in the open.
I’ve searched the Liber Pontificalis for entries about Anacletus dedicating a shrine, and I have found nothing. Nothing in volume I page 125. Nothing in the entire thing. I did, however, find reference to Anacletus building a tomb in Volume I, p. 9:
“He built and adorned the sepulchral monument to Peter, forasmuch as he had been made priest by the blessed Peter, and other places of sepulcher for the burial of bishops. There he himself was likewise buried near the body of the blessed Peter…”
Vatican hill was an ancient cemetery used by both pagans and eventually Christians. It was also used as farmland. It also housed the Circus of Nero (an arena for races and gladiator fights). Given that, it is impossible that an ancient shrine could have survived from Nimrod’s day for Anacletus to rededicate.
CONCLUSION:
This claim is false. Hoeh, I suspect willfully, misquotes the Liber Pontificalis. This tomb was built by Anacletus; he did not dedicate an ancient shrine.
CLAIM:
-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.15
FACTS:
History is so spotty that there are several versions of his placement in the Catholic list of Popes. Hoeh gives no source for this claim. I suspect there is no source. Hoeh only invents this claim to take down Anacletus, and that solely because of his involvement with Peter’s tomb.
CONCLUSION:
This claim is manufactured. There is absolutely no record of Anacletus making this claim. Later Popes (much later) made this claim, but that is no proof at all in regards to whether or not Anacletus made this claim. The notion that the Bishop of Rome would have made a claim like that in those days is laughable and betrays a complete lack of understanding of the order of things in the early church. In fact, at that time, it was the Greek east that was dominant – not the Latin west. And all Bishops were considered of equal rank.
I would remind you that the list of Popes is an attempt to link the Catholic Pontiff to the Apostles - and that is precisely what Hoeh is doing in this booklet. This claim is meant to discredit his competition.
CLAIM:
-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.17
FACTS:
Here is God’s word:
(REV. 2: 9) …I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
They do not at all claim to be “spiritually Jews.” The Bible neither says that, nor does it intend that as its meaning. None of the most respected Bible commentaries support Hoeh. This is a blatant rewriting of the Bible. Hoeh inserts the word “spiritual” so that in your mind you will equate this to the phrase “Spiritual Israel.”
CONCLUSION:
This claim is false. Hoeh has added to the words of the Bible in order to change “Jew” into “Gentile Christian.”
CLAIM:
“But before this time another most virulent disorder had existed, and long afflicted the Church; I mean the difference respecting… Easter. For while one party asserted that the Jewish custom (as to time) should be adhered to, the other (did not).
Accordingly, the people being thus in every place divided in this respect… no one appeared who was capable of devising a remedy… BECAUSE THE CONTROVERSY CONTINUED EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN BOTH PARTIES… Constantine appeared to be the only one on earth capable… He convoked a general council…”
-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.18
FACTS:
When I read this, I get the sense that Eusebius is an indifferent reporter of benign fact. I showed this quote to a neutral third party, without any commentary from me, and their conclusion was the same as mine.
Here are the actual words of Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, book III, Chapter V, in section “Of the Disagreement Respecting the Celebration of Easter”. I will underline the areas that Hoeh left out.
“But before this time another most virulent disorder had existed, and long afflicted the Church; I mean the difference respecting the salutary feast of Easter. For while one party asserted that the Jewish custom should be adhered to, the other affirmed that the exact recurrence of the period should be observed, without following the authority of those who were in error, and strangers to gospel grace [Jews].
Accordingly, the people being thus in every place divided in respect of this, and the sacred observances of religion confounded for a long period (insomuch that the diversity of judgment in regard to the time for celebrating one and the same feast caused the greatest disagreement between those who kept it, some afflicting themselves with fastings and austerities, while others devoted their time to festive relaxation), no one appeared who was capable of devising a remedy for the evil, because the controversy continued equally balanced between both parties. To God alone, the Almighty, was the healing of these differences an easy task; and Constantine appeared to be the only one on earth capable of being his minister for this good end. For as soon as he was made acquainted with the facts which I have described, and perceived that his letter to the Alexandrian Christians had failed to produce its due effect, he at once aroused the energies of his mind, and declared that he must prosecute to the utmost this war also against the secret adversary who was disturbing the peace of the Church.”
Not only did Hoeh leave out all that I have here underlined, he added two sections in parentheses, and a third section at the end.
CONCLUSION:
What Hoeh does here is strategically rewrite Eusebius in order to cause it to say precisely the opposite of what it does say. Hoeh would leave us to understand that the static dating of Easter was disturbing the church. Hoeh removed or rewrote all of the references to how his own position is considered to be “evil” and “disturbing” in Eusebius’ sight.
CLAIM:
-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.18
FACTS:
Once again we see Hoeh’s claims are factually erroneous. The Great Persecution under Diocletian was the worst Roman persecution by far – even worse than that of Nero. Galarius and Constantine ended that.
In 311 AD, Galerius issued an Edict of Toleration, ending the persecution of Christians. Constantine restored confiscated property to Christians in the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. There was now religious freedom in Rome. He outlawed crucifixion in favor of hanging, he restored property to Christians, he freed Christian slaves, he allowed the Christian bishops to decide their own policy (he then enforced their policy in an effort to maintain peace and unity), and many other such benevolent things.
CONCLUSION:
This claim is shockingly false. Hoeh would paint Constantine as a horrible butcher. And why? He does this for no other reason than to invent a history favorable to his flawed presuppositions.
CLAIM:
-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.20
FACTS:
"Athyngani" means “untouchable.” Sándor Avraham, in his online study titled Myths, Hypotheses and Facts Concerning the Origins of Peoples, under section heading The True Origin of Roma and Sinti, says this:
“The Athinganoi were given such name in connection with their ritual purity laws, that regarded impure any contact with other people...”
Vasile Burtea's "The Roma in the Synchrony and the Diachrony of the Contact Population" [say that 5 times fast], under section 1.2 "The Motives and Passages of Migration" claims the phrase "Athinganoi" comes from the Greek and means, roughly, "untouchable."
Johann Lorenz Mosheim agrees, in his book "Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, Volume II" chapter V. This author and book are quoted by Hoeh in his booklet.
As for the Paulicians, they got their name from Paul of Samasota, Bishop of Smyrna (200-275 AD). Not the Apostle Paul.
CONCLUSION:
This claim is demonstrably false. After all of the reading Hoeh did - especially reading Mosheim - I find it impossible to believe that he didn't full well know this.
CLAIM:
“They [the Henricians] were charged by the Catholic Church with remaining faithful to the whole law of God and of observing the Sabbath (Ecclesiastical History, by Peter Allix, pp. 168-169).
-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p. 22
FACTS:
Hoeh quotes the book “Ecclesiastical History” by Peter Allix. This turns out to be “Remarks Upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of the Albigenses”.
That’s Albigenses - not the Petrobrussians, Henricians, or Arnoldists.
The omission of the full title of this work seems utterly deceptive to me since Hoeh uses this quote in direct reference to Henry of Lausanne (founder of the Henricians) and Arnold of Brescia (founder of the Arnoldists) .. but the book is about the Albigenses. Peter de Bruys (founder of the Petrobrussians) and Henry of Lausanne (Henricians) are only mentioned in the book in regards to proving the Albigenses predated them.
To put it plainly, he is citing a book about one group and trying to apply it to other groups.
Hoeh only paraphrases, so there is no specific quote to confirm or deny. What I can do, however, is tell you that the word “sabbath” never appears in the work, and the “law of God” certainly does not refer to the laws of the Old Covenant (which is precisely what Hoeh understands this phrase to mean).
CONCLUSION:
I have found nothing in this book at all, or any other besides, to justify Hoeh’s paraphrase. All of these men were Catholic reformers, outraged by the excesses of the clergy. Peter de Bruys even sought the Pope's permission to preach.
CLAIM:
“Their [the Waldenses] enemies admitted that these people proclaimed the gospel of the Kingdom of God, that they baptized repentant believers and obeyed the whole law of God.”
-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p. 23
FACTS:
William Jones, in his book "History of the Christian Church", specifically says, on p. 80 of his book, that they did not tithe. In fact, Jones relates this to us on p. 82:
“An impartial review of the doctrinal sentiments maintained by the Waldenses; the discipline, order, and worship of their churches, as well as their general deportment and manner of life, not to mention their determined and uniform opposition to the church of Rome, affords abundant evidence of the similarity of their views and practices to those held by Luther, Calvin, and the other illustrious characters, whose labours, in the sixteenth century, contributed so eminently to effect the glorious Reformation.” [emphasis mine]
Note: This is a book Hoeh quotes often. Andrew Dugger and C. O. Dodd in their earlier work "A History of the True Religion Traced from 33 AD to Date" quote from it 33 times. They all refer to it as "Jones' Church History."
CONCLUSION:
Hoeh is obviously not impartial. His claims are false.
The Waldensian church still exists today. They are part of the Presbyterian church. Ask them what their history is.
CLAIM:
“Through the preaching of Lollard and other helpers, hundreds were repenting. Thousands were learning for the first time that baptism means immersion – that the world’s religious holidays came from paganism and that Sunday was not the Sabbath.”
-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, P. 23
FACTS:
Hoeh goes into some specific claims, but backs them up with nothing.
He mentions the Lollards. What do we know about them?
The Lollards were followers of John Wycliffe, another early Protestant. They rejected the excesses of the clergy. Once again we have a group who opposed tithing – they wanted the clergy to live off their own labor. Wycliffe only wanted to reform the Catholic Church.
CONCLUSION:
This claim is false. John Wycliffe was a Catholic reformer; certainly not an Armstrongist.
CLAIM:
“Several faithful congregations did not become members of the [Seventh-day Baptist] Conference because they would not submit to the new Protestant doctrines being introduced (see p. 246 of Belcher’s Religious Denominations).”
-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, pp. 23-24
FACTS:
The book Hoeh references is The Religious Denominations in the United States: Their History, Doctrine, Government and Statistics with a Preliminary Sketch of Judaism, Paganism, and Mohammedanism by Joseph Belcher. Upon turning to page 246, as referenced, I found that Mr. Belcher was not at all speaking of the Seventh Day Baptists. He was speaking about a subsection of Baptists that he calls “Six Principle Baptists.” Mr. Belcher even lists these 6 principles, and contrasts them with the Associated Baptists and the Freewill Baptists, so it is obvious that he is not speaking of the Seventh-day Baptist church.
CONCLUSION:
Hoeh infers Belcher was speaking about the Seventh-day Baptists; he was not saying that at all. Hoeh infers that Belcher was saying certain independent seventh day Sabbath observing groups were refusing to join the Seventh-day Baptist General Conference; he was not saying that at all. Hoeh infers that Belcher was saying the issue was over the introduction of pagan heresies (ie. Protestant doctrines); he was not saying that at all. Hoeh infers the refusal was more specifically over the Sabbath, or naming, or some such issue; it was not. Hoeh didn’t get a single detail correct except that there was one group who refused to join another.
I can see no possible way that this was done without complete foreknowledge and willful intent. For it to be anything besides would mean Herman Hoeh is either not the author, or he was suffering from some form of dementia.
CLAIM:
-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p. 24
FACTS:
Hoeh is referring to Gilbert Cranmer and his rejection of Ellen G. White. Hoeh is attempting to sever all ties with William Miller and the Seventh Day Adventists.
According to the Ellen G. White official estate website, in an article titled “Ellen G. White: A Brief Biography”, under section “Marriage of James White and Ellen Harmon”, John and Ellen White accepted the Saturday Sabbath in the latter half of 1846. According to the Seventh Day Adventist website, in an article on the history of the church, it states the name “Seventh-day Adventist” was chosen in 1860.
It was at this conference in Battle Creek, Michigan that one of William Miller’s followers, Mr. Gilbert Cranmer (an elder in Ellen G. White’s Adventist church) publically aired disagreements with Ellen G. White and her visions. Afterwards, Gilbert Cranmer took a chunk of people in Michigan with him when he left, and he formed the group that eventually became known as the Church of God (Seventh Day).
CONCLUSION:
This statement is false. Generally speaking, for several years the majority did go along with Ellen G. White. If they hadn’t, there wouldn’t be any “Seventh Day” in “Church of God (Seventh Day)”. Only a handful eventually broke away, and that was due to her odd visions and prophecies. But Armstrongism is a branch of Adventism and a descendant of Ellen G. White’s church. (Technically they still go along with her to this day.) In trying to deny this link, Hoeh inadvertently admits it. That tie is impossible to sever.
In closing…
One person can show every last verse in the Bible on a given topic, and as sure as the sun rises in the east there will be someone bound and determined to argue against it. It is the nature of people to feel so highly of their own opinions that some will never be convinced otherwise by any evidence. Mankind would kill their Savior before they re-assess their opinions and beliefs.
But this information I have laid out here is not speculation. It is a matter of historical fact. In one place Hoeh quotes an author, and I have checked that quote, and in the vast majority of instances his quote was incorrect. Some were not just incorrect, but grossly so. In some cases he left whole swaths of information out. In some cases he claimed things were said that were not.
This is not a matter of opinion. Did Hoeh misquote or did he not? It is a fact that he did! Therefore it cannot be the "true history."
The works are there, I have provided links, check for yourself. I deeply suspect, given the rare and inaccessible nature of the source material, that Hoeh and Armstrong hoped no one ever could or would double check.
Dear reader, you will have to read the full version of my study to get the full effect of Hoeh’s errors (or do a study of your own.) Several times Hoeh misquotes his sources. Several times he invents history. Several times his information is blatantly taken straight from the grossly flawed and fully debunked works of Alexander Hyslop. Several times his inventions are obviously designed to justify Herbert Armstrong and the things he has said or did. Indeed, the whole booklet was written to this end.
Some of the examples are so blatant, so egregious, that there is no possible way they were not deliberate, premeditated, and done with intent to deceive.
Taking in to account my recent review of Herbert Armstrong’s “Who is the Beast?” –where I saw much the same thing as I found here - I have no choice but to look at every work from these two compatriots with the highest degree of skepticism.
Current members of a COG, deeply sought after by God, please take this information to heart and consider the methods of the men who gave you what you now believe. Was it honest what they did? How much of what you now believe is based on the booklets and articles written by these two men? Did you do as the Bereans did and verify the information for yourself? I did not – until recently. And I am ASTOUNDED by the mistruth I found. Is that Godly fruit you’re eating, or rotten?
May God lead you to His truth. And may God have mercy on these men who have foisted such terrible lies on so many tens of thousands of people.
Posted by xHWA at Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)